Friday, 4 February 2011


Obviously there is a pretty bad discrepancy between those numbers in this morning's edition of blowing sunshine up your skirt from the Ministry of Truth.

current employment report

Given the size of the country, it SHOULD take 600k jobs to move the rate that much so obviously there's a problem here. How did this happen? Dig a bit deeper and you'll see that they simply defined 504k out of the labor force from December to January and rounding did the rest. Wave a wand and define those people out of existence. If they don't exist, they can't be unemployed now can they?

If you look at the chart, you'll see that they did the same thing in December from November. In that case only 260k unemployed people disappeared from the statistics. There is a clear and systemic effort to deceive the public about the state of the economy and it's getting worse.

latest household data

But there's is an even bigger deception in the numbers that helps to reveal the systemic fraud of the numbers. Last month the B(L)S claimed that their establishment survey measured 130,712k employed:

December 2010 employment report

But THIS month they show 130,265k employed and claim that it is an increase of 36k, rather than the massive drop of 447k that it actually is. They did this by altering history. Now, the record shows that 130,229k were working in December and the rest of those people have disappeared down the memory hole. It wouldn't be a concern if the revisions were random but the pattern is very consistent - almost perfectly so. Report good news now and back away later. This is the same game played with corporate earnings to deceive investors. Loudly trumpet "good" current results. Then quietly go back later and revise them down. Then use the revised numbers to show "growth" with the next fraudulent set of numbers.

The B(L)S calls this rebasing. Corporations call it a "one time charge" but it's the same scam. The objective in both cases is to mislead the public. It's nothing more than fraud with the goal of getting the public to buy the hopium of the confidence game. That's why I think that freebasing is a more appropriate name.