Number Monkeys

(Does ANYONE believe that the Administration Magically produced 7 million enrollees in Obama Care in just two weeks?  Bueller…. Bueller… Anyone?  Really?  We have Seen This Before.  In fact, we’re still seeing it with the Unemployment numbers.  Please re-read the below post, then ask yourself is Anything this Administration says believable?  Anything?  Then ask yourself, Is the Press now totally co-opted by the ruling party?  Are our Media simply Propaganda Arms of the Government?  It’s all so Incredible to be Unbelievable if it wasn’t happening right before our eyes.)

(And yesterday, Sibelius actually said that 5.3-5.4% Unemployment should represent “Full Employment”.  Not long ago a President was Condemned Roundly by the Left when Unemployment went over 5%.  5%.  Again… 5%.  These people know no bounds when it comes to blatantly insulting our intelligence.)

Why isn’t anyone asking for the exact formula used to calculate unemployment and then posting it on the screen every time the numbers are presented?  How hard can this be?

I contend that just like the rhetoric employed by politicians such as “Forward”, “Hope and Change” and “Country First” the formulas we use to get our numbers are always left intentionally vague.  Think about it for a moment… If you know exactly how the data is arrived at, you might be able to do it yourself.  And… if you could do it yourself then there is no way for any Administration to monkey with the results.

In other words, if you define anything, it will be used to measure your performance.  We certainly cannot have any of that in government.  And clearly we are willing to accept, allow, endorse this behavior from our political leaders.  Why on earth would you be specific when you can leave it all up to the listeners imagination?  If they like you, they’ll make it mean whatever they think is favorable, if they don’t like you… well, who cares?

So once again we have an unemployment number that is meaningless except that it’s bad, or good, depending on who you like.  Keep in mind, it’s the best one the Monkey’s could produce… and sometimes it’s better than the last one, until the Monkey’s revise it when no one is looking, and then it’s not… or it is.

My latest favorite bit of Monkey business has applied a number to those “dropping out fo the work force” and “those who have stopped looking for work”.

I’m not the sharpest bowling ball in the deck, so it’s probably no surprise that I don’t understand what that means.  Help me here.  Does that mean that these people have disappeared from the face of the earth?  Does it mean they have illegally crossed the border into Canada to find work?  Does it mean that they are no longer a burden on our already overwhelmed social safety net because they stopped taking welfare? (This one I would be happy with.) Apparently none of the above.  It simply means they are not considered “unemployed”.

Well okay!…  Let’s all drop out of the workforce thus solving our problem.

Frankly, I’m not sure why our government goes through all the posturing to create an idea that any of this is based in reason.  I would have more respect if they just came out and said “We made up this months unemployment number, at it’s X.”  (It’s been done before… FDR did it with gold.)  Then at least there would be some honesty, even if inaccuracy remains, in the system.

I can hear it now… “Mike, you’re just not educated enough to understand the complexities involved when trying to get an accurate number for something like unemployment. It’s just not that simple.”  Yes… Yes… it’s FAR TOO COMPLEX for small minds like mine.  I seem to hear this anytime the Number Monkey’s get challenged.  Well, yes, it is that simple which is why I’m educated enough to understand it.

Floating metrics are loved by anyone not wishing to be held accountable to the results of their prognostications.  “We created 4 million new jobs!”  Just don’t bother me with the fact that unemployment is going up, not down.  And don’t bother me with the fact that many of these jobs already existed but we decided to call them something else in order to count them.  I get to decide what job is and I get to decide how I calculate it… so SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT UP and stop bothering me…  As long as we let them get away with it then they will keep behaving like your little sister.  This truly is supposed to be the function of our news media as our watchdogs over government.  Where are these bastions of objectivity when you need them?

I guess it’s up to us.

So, let’s all agree on a single, unalterable, formula and stick to it.  We should also agree that people don’t simply disappear.  I’m sure all the media will jump on this idea after they read this post.

If nothing else it would be fun to watch the politicians screams out in pain after being shown the cross of accountability.  Remember, the formulas should not change from Administration to Administration.

And, let’s start making a public list of those “surprised” economists every time the economic numbers come out.  I think it would be useful for the news agencies (since they are incapable of doing this themselves) to finally figure out who not to listen to.  (For all you news nets out there, you can just send me a check for that one.  I also accept scotch.)

(Originally posted 091912… yet here we are again.)

(And Again… and again…)

Advertisements

About Mike

Background is in Media with a little History Major thrown in just to be annoying. View all posts by Mike

4 responses to “Number Monkeys

  • thirdnews

    Magic 8-balls ain;t cheap

    Like

    • Mike

      The overall point is why don’t “we” demand a standard set of metrics clearly visible to all of us. This would go far in reducing the influence of number manipulation… clearly the Government will not be happy about such a move, but since when do we need the government to OK how “we” look at things?

      Like

      • thirdnews

        Neither Democrats or Republicans would want to give up playing their games. The only chance for a mandated government calculations formula would be from the 42% independents demanding the change

        Like

  • Rattlesnake

    No, unemployment is not complex in the least. It means the percentage of people who don’t have a job among the population that is capable of working (not not looking for work, or “out of the workforce,” or on welfare). It needn’t be any more complex than that, and only an idiot would think it is anything more. A seven year old who knows how to use a calculator could figure it out, assuming they were provided with the data (and I’m not sure how that is collected, but they clearly manage). Some people are just idiotic in their pretension.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: