Posts Tagged ‘CNBC’

Inflation, the REAL number vs. the Government’s number….

April 16, 2015

I have previously written about the farce that is the calculation of the Consumer Price Index, or CPI.  I have also written about CNBC’s Steve Liesman ‘s IDIOTIC statements on inflation.  In that second link I gave Mr. Liesman a suggestion to help him do some calculations.  He STILL hasn’t, and he still believes spouts the same nonsense.  I scratched believes, because NO ONE that thinks could believe.

Now, I have found a site that has done some calculations.  It is the Chapwood Index.  I may not agree with all of the items or the process, but the results are what I expected.  I know and feel EXACTLY how much MORE I am paying for everyday things.  I know the Government number is a LIE.

True American citizen inflation is MUCH higher than the Government’s estimate propaganda of “inflation”.  When I say MUCH, I mean by roughly a FACTOR of 4 or more.  You should figure out how much Social Security checks would be if the government used these numbers instead of their “estimates”.

Remember, THEY (the politicians and government) have a VESTED interest in a LOWER number.

So, Mr. Liesman, what do you say now???


March 15, 2013

And now for some Friday morning humor…..or maybe this is NOT so funny, I guess it depends on your perspective…

So I read this article today on, you know the really smart BUSINESS channel/company that is a propagandist for the current regime “news” company.  First here is the propaganda article:

Consumer Prices Gassed Up but Inflation in Check – CNBC

Go ahead read it again….do you see the humor?

And here is the first paragraph in the article:

“U.S. consumer prices recorded their largest increase in nearly four years in February as the cost of gasoline surged, but details of the report on Friday showed no sign of a pickup in inflation to trouble the Federal Reserve.”

How about now, do you see the humor?

Prices ARE going UP, BUT there is NO INFLATION??  Who writes this crap??  And why are they PAID at all??

I am going to help CNBC out, and anyone else who does not understand, here is the DEFINITION of INFLATION:


/ɪnˈfleɪʃən/ Show Spelled [in-fley-shuhn] Show IPA


In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time. When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services. Consequently, inflation also reflects an erosion in the purchasing power of money – a loss of real value in the internal medium of exchange and unit of account within the economy.” – Wikipedia

You see, when PRICES GO UP, it does not matter WHY they go up, it is BY DEFINITION INFLATION!!!!

IF this was NOT SO PAINFUL, it would be FUNNY!!!  The joke is on YOU!!!

Initial Claims for Unemployment…

April 5, 2012

I was NOT going to write about unemployment for a while, after last week’s summary.  BUT, sometimes I get so frustrated with “reporting” that I have to do something.

Here is an article from CNBC, and I want to rip apart the HEADLINE and the FIRST sentence!!

First, the headline.  The headline reads:

“Weekly Jobless Claims Stay on Downward Drift, Fall 6,000″

“Downward drift”??  What are you talking about??  You cannot be serious!!  Here is a quote from the same article giving the “FACTS” (and I use that term loosely):

“Initial claims for state unemployment benefits fell 6,000 to a seasonally adjusted 357,000, the lowest level since April 2008, the Labor Department said on Thursday.”

357,000!!!  Remember that number, we’ll come back to it later.  Now, let’s look back and see what the Liar Propaganda Labor Department said previously:

Last week:

“The Labor Department says weekly unemployment benefit applications fell 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 359,000.”

Which indicates that last week’s number has been REVISED UPWARD AGAIN, this time by 4,000 claims(357,000+6,000=363,000, not 359,000, but THEY said 359,000).

The week before they said:

“Initial claims for state unemployment benefits fell 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 348,000, the lowest level since February 2008, the Labor Department said.”

BUT WAIT!!!  Didn’t they say that we were “staying on a downward drift”??  Let me think about this, two weeks ago THEY said we were at 348,000, then we were at 363,000, and last week we went down for ONE WHOLE WEEK to 357,000, that is a “downward drift”??  Are you serious??

Now , the first sentence:

“The number of Americans lining up for new jobless benefits fell to the lowest level in nearly four years last week, according to a government report that showed ongoing healing in the labor market.”

WHAT??  This is COMPLETELY UNTRUE!!!  Oh wait, let me read that again.  “…fell to the lowest level in NEARLY four YEARS last week…”  Oh, I see!!!  2 weeks is really, almost, kinda like, real close to 4 YEARS!!!  NO!!!  This is WRONG it is not even CLOSE!!!

Let’s go ALL THE WAY BACK to March 8th and see what the Labor Department said:

“Jobless claims in the U.S. rose to the highest level in five weeks, climbing by 8,000 to a seasonally adjusted 362,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. Claims from two weeks ago were revised up to 354,000 from 351,000.”

If I could highlight that 354,000 more I would, because the last time I checked 354,000 was LESS THAN 357,000!!!  And that was a REVISED NUMBER!!! 

What do you say about your “reporting” CNBC?  Are we going to get an apology for this out right LIE??  It is a sad state of the world when the propagandists can not even get the story right!!!

Unemployment REMAINS above 400,000 AGAIN….

October 13, 2011

Another week, another dismal unemployment number and another UPWARD revision of the number that came from the Obama Administration.  Last week:

“Initial claims for state unemployment benefits climbed 6,000 to a seasonally adjusted 401,000, the Labor Department said.”

No they did not!!!  Initial claims SOARED to 405,000!!!  From CNBC this week:

“Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dipped 1,000 to a seasonally adjusted 404,000, the Labor Department said, from an upwardly revised 405,000 the prior week.”

And remember that last week I said:

“I will wager that this weeks number is closer to 406,000 than 401,000.”

Damn!!!  I missed it by ANOTHER 1,000 claims to the upside.  This puts MY estimation, over three weeks, off by 1,000 jobs.  In other words I have missed the number by 333 jobs per week.  As opposed to the Government propagandists, from the Bureau of Labor “Statistics”, who are off by 13,000 jobs, or 4,333 jobs per week.  Always to the downside!!!

This week the 4-week moving average is:

“The four-week moving average of claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends, fell 7,000 to 408,000.”

This number also includes an UPWARD revision of 1,000 jobs from last week.

So, this week they said 404,000 new claims.  I’ll wager that the number is 408,000.  Any takers, yet??

Something else that I noticed today from our “friends” at CNBC (which is owned by Government General Electric, and run by a very close friend of The One, Jeffery Immelt) is illustrated in the following quotes.

From CNBC on August 11:

“Economists say both initial claims and the four-week average need to drop close to 350,000 to signal a sustainable improvement in the labor market.”

and from CNBC on September 15:

“Applications need to fall below 375,000 to indicate that hiring is increasing enough to lower the unemployment rate.”

and from CNBC on October 13:

“Initial claims stayed close to the 400,000 mark usually associated with some improvement in the jobs market for a third straight week.”

So, in the course of 60 days, it appears that the numbers “needed to show improvement” keep getting WORSE, which is BETTER for the Obama Administration.  Very curious.

Steve Liesman, CNBC and Inflation….

March 16, 2011

Yesterday, March 15th I was watching CNBC (the pertinent discussion comes around 4:50) in the morning and Steve Liesman was talking with Rick Santelli and the discussion was about inflation.  The Government (which has a vested interest in a LOW inflation number) says that inflation is low.  The satatistic that Steve Liesman was quoting was a number that did not include food (you know, that stuff that EVERYONE needs to have to stay alive) and energy (you know, that stuff that you put in a car to get to work so that you can buy the food).  I will agree that that number is low.  Rick santelli argued that the number did not reflect reality to the average American.

The problem that I have is Steve Liesman then essentially said that there were no “numbers” that could be used that would be reality.  Because they were NOT available!!!  HUH????!!!  I have a few questions for Mr. Liesman:

     1)  Are you serious??  Sometimes you look like an IDIOT!!  If you answered yes, then I guess the Wright Brothers should have stayed home and watched TV, because no one had flown before.  Oh wait, there were not TV’s either!!!  I coul go on, but I hope you get the point.

     2)  Do you seriously think that NO ONE can come up with an accurate measure of INFLATION??

     3)  Why do you think that the Government (which has a vested interest in a low inflation number) is the only entity that should come up with the number??  They are vested because many government programs are “pegged” to the inflation rate (such as Social Security).  If the inflation rate were to rise be accurately reflected, then the deficit would be MUCH larger.

Mr. Liesman, I would like to make a suggestion to you. 

With your resources at CNBC, which is owned by Government General Electric, you should pick a population number that is represented by an average city in the USA, say 700,000.  Small enough to pick up most states, but big enough so that the number of cities is not too large.  Then, have someone go to two different stores in each city and buy a basket of goods.  Not on sale.  No coupons.  The basket could contain a gallon of milk, a dozen eggs, a couple apples, bananas, oranges, ears of corn, green beans, a top sirloin steak, a chicken, pork chops, a loaf of bread, a couple 2 litres of soda, a box of diapers, laundry soap, bath soap, etc.  Also include 10 gallons of gas at two different gas stations in the city (you would not even need to buy this, I think you can figure out the cost.  10 x the cost per gallon, or just take the cost per gallon and move the decimal to the right one digit.)  Pick a basket, I know YOU could even do it.  Then, do this EVERY week.  Compile a spreadsheet that shows what it cost in each city, every week, and average them.  There is YOUR DAMN NUMBER!!!  It would even show if inflation is *gasp* different in parts of the country.

See that was not so difficult.  And I will BET you that it will show that the “government inflation number” is BOGUS to the average American.