The BLS does a TERRIBLE job of managing the unemployment stats. The birth/death model just does not work at cycle changes. For a detailed look at these issues check out Mish's many posts at http://bit.ly/9yjUjN
Additionally, there is something going on beyond a flawed model. From zerohedge.com => http://bit.ly/b5AJsz
"Readers may be surprised to discover that beginning in April, of 2010, continuing through today, there have been 22 out of 23 consecutive upward prior weekly revisions! In other words, the BLS has a definitive mandate to underrepresent the "current" weekly data and to allow it to catch up with reality once it has become "prior", and thus no longer market moving, when in reality should the BLS present true data it would have likely missed estimates on more than half the occasions it has "beaten" and caused ridiculous market spikes like the one experienced earlier. Furthermore, combining all individual weekly data, demonstrates that the BLS has underrepresented initial claims by roughly 80,000 year to date."
Perhaps it's just bias, but i have real trouble taking any advice or getting news from somebody who goes by the pseudonym "Tyler Durden", or anybody who ends up getting published by said person.
Agreed it's a bit silly, but it's still worth training yourself to look past that and evaluate the argument independently of its presentation and other irrevelant context.
It's hard, and I use the word 'train' intentionally b/c it requires discipline and constant attention. But I've uncovered gems of understanding over the years from doing that, that I wouldn't have otherwise, some which confirmed my worldview, and others which refuted it or expanded it.
Some people are brilliantly insightful, but just awful at communicating and presenting their understanding.
'Hysterical' + 'nutcases' = ad hominem. Personal attack intended to discredit the argument. I wasn't referring to the 'Austrian' part. If someone thinks Austrian economics is wrong or a flawed framework for understanding some phenomena or topic, just explain why.
Also, I'm not sure that their Austrian favoritism has any bearing on this particular claim. Arguing that the BLS is intentionally fudging and later revising data to mitigate its effect on the markets seems economic-creed-agnostic.
Additionally, there is something going on beyond a flawed model. From zerohedge.com => http://bit.ly/b5AJsz
"Readers may be surprised to discover that beginning in April, of 2010, continuing through today, there have been 22 out of 23 consecutive upward prior weekly revisions! In other words, the BLS has a definitive mandate to underrepresent the "current" weekly data and to allow it to catch up with reality once it has become "prior", and thus no longer market moving, when in reality should the BLS present true data it would have likely missed estimates on more than half the occasions it has "beaten" and caused ridiculous market spikes like the one experienced earlier. Furthermore, combining all individual weekly data, demonstrates that the BLS has underrepresented initial claims by roughly 80,000 year to date."
Check out the post for a nice chart.