New machine day!

[Brian]

Who counts the job reports? They recalculated for May and June and were off 238,000 jobs. Must have been a broken Abacus.

I don't play close attention to *any* of this stuff, but my understanding is that it *always* gets revised later (which doesn't imply that it's useless information, either). I will admit that I "feel" better when there's "good news", and worse when there's "bad news" however!

Didn't Reagan have some quote about how "it was a recession when your neighbor was outta work, and a depression when *you* were outta work?"

That's Yogi Berra-level stuff right there!

[neurosis]

Didn't Reagan have some quote about how "it was a recession when your neighbor was outta work, and a depression when *you* were outta work?"

Reagan was known for his quips, but not his economic intelligence?

[Brian]

Reagan was known for his quips, but not his economic intelligence?

I'm definitely *not* saying that RR offered much in the economic intelligence dep't., but I still found that statement to be quite funny!

Didn't he also say something like "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" or was that someone else? (I'm thinkin' it musta been about Iran-Contra....remember Oliver North dressed up in his costume in front of Congress? Jeez....)

[neurosis]

I'm definitely *not* saying that RR offered much in the economic intelligence dep't

I was kinda joking? 

I haven't done a ton of reading about Reagan. I was pretty young when he was elected and I spent most of my teens figuring out how to navigate life so didn't pay much attention to politics.

Every time I pick something up and do a dive in to his presidency, it never looks good? It could just be the material I chose?

[Brian]

From the various comments I read here, I get the idea that folks assume that if "the numbers" are ever revised it is interpreted as evidence of either incompetence or malfeasance....is this correct?

Another something to ponder: am I the only one who finds it odd that anytime things don't go the way you want (i.e.-your guy doesn't take the prize), the "obvious" explanation is either "election fraud" or "we should abolish the electoral college"?....and then when it breaks your way, it's "move along-nothing to see here."

Anyone? Anyone?

[neurosis]

From the various comments I read here, I get the idea that folks assume that if "the numbers" are ever revised it is interpreted as evidence of either incompetence or malfeasance....is this correct?

Yes.  lol 

I mean, if you try to have a discussion about it, and it isn't one sided, then in the words of Bush - "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"

[neurosis]

[Brian]

LOL! Please refer to my point in the 2nd paragraph of post #34....

So if the "bad news" is obviously "rigged" what about the good news? (Does anybody really believe this bozo?)

"Heads I win, tails you lose" anyone?

Anyone? Anyone?

[Del.]

From the various comments I read here, I get the idea that folks assume that if "the numbers" are ever revised it is interpreted as evidence of either incompetence or malfeasance....is this correct?

Another something to ponder: am I the only one who finds it odd that anytime things don't go the way you want (i.e.-your guy doesn't take the prize), the "obvious" explanation is either "election fraud" or "we should abolish the electoral college"?....and then when it breaks your way, it's "move along-nothing to see here."

Anyone? Anyone?

I would agree with you if there wasn't such a big revision difference.

[CNCAppsJames]

From the various comments I read here, I get the idea that folks assume that if "the numbers" are ever revised it is interpreted as evidence of either incompetence or malfeasance....is this correct?

Another something to ponder: am I the only one who finds it odd that anytime things don't go the way you want (i.e.-your guy doesn't take the prize), the "obvious" explanation is either "election fraud" or "we should abolish the electoral college"?....and then when it breaks your way, it's "move along-nothing to see here."

Anyone? Anyone?

They have almost always been revised. As I said there are a lot of dynamic datasets that are part of the calculation. It's to be expected.  Matter of fact, if they did not get revised at all I'd be more suspect. Clearly the jobs numbers were in the plus column for Biden. Good. It's good when people are working. Embellishment is to be expected but 280,000? C'mon man.

The electoral college should ALWAYS exist..or.else Lost Angles decides everything for you....that place is a shit show.

[neurosis]

I would agree with you if there wasn't such a big revision difference.

The question is, would you agree with the change if Biden was still president.

[Smit]

So if the "bad news" is obviously "rigged" what about the good news? (Does anybody really believe this bozo?)

There will be plenty of good news in the future for job creation, you can bet your ass on that!

[neurosis]

There will be plenty of good news in the future for job creation, you can bet your ass on that!

Can  you bet your ass on who it's going to come from?

[Del.]

The question is, would you agree with the change if Biden was still president.

I've already said I would would. Go back and read it. Stop being so anti Trump.

[neurosis]

Stop being so anti Trump.

Stop being so anti anything but Trump.