I don't understand why Trump cares so much about the numbers. If voters cared about those sort of numbers, Biden would have been so popular he could have been reelected without deigning to show up for a debate or even appearing in public. I suppose one more number that you can't trust helps the liars over the truthful, but this particular meddling really seems to have a tiny upside for the administration with a very large downside.
How do we know that the new numbers for the prior quarters are correct now? And how do we know that the current data is correct?
(Aside from as they said in this video, that it makes more sense that job growth would be slowing given tariffs and all, and aside from what Trump dis-likers like us expect.)
The writing’s been on the wall for a while. Consumer spending as been increasingly propped up by the top 10% of earners. The vast majority of Americans are starting to hunker down. According to the WSJ on Feb 23, the top decile “now account for 49.7% of all spending, a record in data going back to 1989, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. Three decades ago, they accounted for about 36%.”
A point to consider: were the original numbers accurate or are the revised numbers accurate, or neither? How do you know. Also, how are the numbers derived, and why does it take 1-2 months to revise the number? Why were the numbers from two months ago revised one month ago? What are the procedures used by the BLS?
Please be accurate, Tim! She was fired because of the strong downward revision of the job numbers from 1 and 2 months ago AND with the poor job numbers this month. Surely she was responsible for the good numbers 1-2 months ago, and then Trump was not upset with her. I hope you ask the question on how predictions could have been so wrong 1-2 months ago. That seems legitimate to me.
It seems the Trump regime's standard practice is to fire people who tell the truth. Remember when Tulsi Gabbard fired the analysts who created an internal report that correctly said that Venuzuela was NOT engaging in war against the US? And of course, Tulsi, like everyone in the Trump regime, would never do anything that isn't blessed by Trump himself. So now, we absolutely know that nothing coming out of the Trump administration that is related to foreign intellence or financial statistics can be trusted.
Is there any case to be made she was fired not because Trump didn't like the numbers but for professional incompetence because the old numbers needed so much correction? And does it matter?
I don't think that's what actually happened, both because those stats aren't just the work of one person and because TRUMP HIMSELF argued not that she messed up but that she betrayed him. (The whole Biden-appointee, inflated the numbers to help Kamala, etc.) But if I was a serious wonky economist on the right that's what I'd be arguing. And it would definitely be a more useful message for that myth we're still a stable non-failed state, even if it's not true.
Poor lady, just doing her job. & poor us. But that's been true for the better part of six months now. :-(
My aunt, a retired BLS economist, just pointed out the last time a president tried to taper with the statistics. It was Nixon. When he tried to fudge the inflation numbers the head of the bureau, Geoffrey Moore, refused. After more than a year of conflict he ended up resigning in protest in January 1973. What else was happening? Well, there was this trial of the burglars from that weird break-in at the Watergate hotel ...
Then this pops up just as the Epstein stuff is hitting the fan.
My off-kilter prediction: you can disregard whole sections of the Constitution, you can eliminate whole agencies and departments without the approval of Congress, you can put troops in the streets and snatch people without warrant or trial. But you don't mess with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those people with f--- your s--- up.
This firing is f-ing outrageous. Can't people see this for what it is? He does these things because he thinks he can get away with it. At some point it's going to be a bridge too far. One hopes. And prays, if one prays.
The economy during my first term was the best. Thanks Obama.
I don't understand why Trump cares so much about the numbers. If voters cared about those sort of numbers, Biden would have been so popular he could have been reelected without deigning to show up for a debate or even appearing in public. I suppose one more number that you can't trust helps the liars over the truthful, but this particular meddling really seems to have a tiny upside for the administration with a very large downside.
Trump is sclerotic. Trump is decaying before our eyes. But here's a principle he can still remember: if at first you don't succeed, fix blame fast.
What about all the thugs that will be hired for ICE pretty soon? Maybe they’re counting on that to lift the jobs numbers.
How do we know that the new numbers for the prior quarters are correct now? And how do we know that the current data is correct?
(Aside from as they said in this video, that it makes more sense that job growth would be slowing given tariffs and all, and aside from what Trump dis-likers like us expect.)
The writing’s been on the wall for a while. Consumer spending as been increasingly propped up by the top 10% of earners. The vast majority of Americans are starting to hunker down. According to the WSJ on Feb 23, the top decile “now account for 49.7% of all spending, a record in data going back to 1989, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics. Three decades ago, they accounted for about 36%.”
It's a major rewrite of the "Emperor Has No Clothes": the child who called out, his family are all burned at the stake.
I look at it as an Authoritarian flood, not creepy. Respectfully.
A point to consider: were the original numbers accurate or are the revised numbers accurate, or neither? How do you know. Also, how are the numbers derived, and why does it take 1-2 months to revise the number? Why were the numbers from two months ago revised one month ago? What are the procedures used by the BLS?
Please be accurate, Tim! She was fired because of the strong downward revision of the job numbers from 1 and 2 months ago AND with the poor job numbers this month. Surely she was responsible for the good numbers 1-2 months ago, and then Trump was not upset with her. I hope you ask the question on how predictions could have been so wrong 1-2 months ago. That seems legitimate to me.
You have a point for sure... shoot just when I thought pocketbook issues would penetrate it all. Maybe Joe Rogan?
It seems the Trump regime's standard practice is to fire people who tell the truth. Remember when Tulsi Gabbard fired the analysts who created an internal report that correctly said that Venuzuela was NOT engaging in war against the US? And of course, Tulsi, like everyone in the Trump regime, would never do anything that isn't blessed by Trump himself. So now, we absolutely know that nothing coming out of the Trump administration that is related to foreign intellence or financial statistics can be trusted.
Is there any case to be made she was fired not because Trump didn't like the numbers but for professional incompetence because the old numbers needed so much correction? And does it matter?
I don't think that's what actually happened, both because those stats aren't just the work of one person and because TRUMP HIMSELF argued not that she messed up but that she betrayed him. (The whole Biden-appointee, inflated the numbers to help Kamala, etc.) But if I was a serious wonky economist on the right that's what I'd be arguing. And it would definitely be a more useful message for that myth we're still a stable non-failed state, even if it's not true.
Poor lady, just doing her job. & poor us. But that's been true for the better part of six months now. :-(
My aunt, a retired BLS economist, just pointed out the last time a president tried to taper with the statistics. It was Nixon. When he tried to fudge the inflation numbers the head of the bureau, Geoffrey Moore, refused. After more than a year of conflict he ended up resigning in protest in January 1973. What else was happening? Well, there was this trial of the burglars from that weird break-in at the Watergate hotel ...
Then this pops up just as the Epstein stuff is hitting the fan.
My off-kilter prediction: you can disregard whole sections of the Constitution, you can eliminate whole agencies and departments without the approval of Congress, you can put troops in the streets and snatch people without warrant or trial. But you don't mess with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those people with f--- your s--- up.
This firing is f-ing outrageous. Can't people see this for what it is? He does these things because he thinks he can get away with it. At some point it's going to be a bridge too far. One hopes. And prays, if one prays.
Its possible that US economy is less trustworthy than Argentina.
getting there.